1. The Defendant: (a) from June 15, 2013, to Plaintiff A, KRW 22,147,350, and KRW 45,00 to Plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: C Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Defendant on May 17, 201 (Public notice of approval for the implementation of a project) and public notice of Seongbuk-gu on June 1, 2011 (public notice of change of authorization for the implementation of a project):

B. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee (Seoul Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee) on April 26, 2013 - The plaintiff and the plaintiff subject to expropriation : F- 298 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, G 63 square meters in size, and other obstacles attached to each of the above land, and the plaintiff and the plaintiff: H large 165 square meters in size and buildings attached to the above land, and other obstacles - The starting date of expropriation: The compensation for losses on June 14, 2013 - The calculation of the compensation for the plaintiffs based on the arithmetic average of the results of each appraisal by the appraisal appraisal corporation and the

(c) The Central Land Tribunal adjudicates on April 17, 2014 - Compensation for losses: Attached on the basis of an arithmetic mean of the respective appraisal results of the central appraisal corporation and the Alban appraisal corporation;

1. As stated in the column for “statement of calculation of compensation” (hereinafter referred to as “assessment of compensation”) of the Plaintiffs’ computation of compensation (hereinafter collectively referred to as “appraisal of compensation”) (based on recognition”), the facts that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3 evidence, Eul’s 1 through 3 evidence, Eul’s 1, 2, 6, and 7 evidence (including those with abnormal numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that since the result of the court’s commission (hereinafter “court appraisal”) duly reflects the market price of each pertinent land owned by the Plaintiffs at the time of the adjudication of expropriation (hereinafter “land subject to expropriation”), the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs should additionally pay the difference between the compensation calculated by the court’s appraisal (hereinafter “court compensation”) and the compensation calculated by the adjudication appraisal (hereinafter “adjudication compensation”).

In this regard, the defendant shall select a wrong standard for comparison and select the land subject to expropriation.